IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

in the Assarraf collection indicates the importance attributed to cases involving Jews and the
seriousness with which they were treated by both sides.
The fatāwā preserved in the Assarraf collection mostly concern the validity of testimony,
that is, they call into question testimonials submitted as evidence by one of the parties to the
lawsuit. 166 For instance, in a particularly complicated case between Shalom and Aḥmad b. ‘Abd
al-Jalīl al-Qamrī which began on February 9, 1880, Shalom sued Aḥmad for a debt which he had
guaranteed for his wife, Zaynab bint Mulūk al-Qamrī. 167 Aḥmad denied the charge, claiming
that he had only guaranteed Zaynab’s presence in court and not payment of the debt she owed. 168
In response, Shalom produced a lafif in which twelve Muslim men testified that they personally
knew that Aḥmad had guaranteed Zaynab’s debt to Shalom. 169 Shalom clearly hoped that this
testimony would constitute proof that Aḥmad did indeed owe him 196 riyāls. However, Aḥmad
consulted the muftī Aḥmad b. ‘Abd al-Jalīl al-Ṣanhājī concerning this lafīf, who wrote a fatwā
claiming that it was null and void. 170 Al-Ṣanhājī raised three reasons for declaring the lafīf
invalid, including that the witnesses did not specify the amount being guaranteed; that the
witnesses did not specify the source of their knowledge (mustanad al-‘ilm); 171 and finally that
166
See also TC, File #5, from lawsuit beginning 15 Muḥarram 1291 and from lawsuit beginning 17 Rabī‘ II 1291;
File #1, from lawsuit beginning 1 Jumādā I 1292; File #2, from lawsuit beginning 20 Jumādā II 1294; File #10, from
lawsuit beginning 23 Sha‘bān 1294; File #2, copy of three fatāwā (no date). The only fatwā I found which does not
concern the validity of testimony discusses the nature of rights to a ḥubs property (from File #9, copies of two
fatwās with no date).
167
TC, File #5, 27 Ṣafar 1297. The continuation of this lawsuit (including the relevant fatāwā) is on a separate
document found in File #1, starting with a lafīf from 1 Rabī‘ I 1297.
168
In fact, Shalom sued Aḥmad for two separate debts. One was for 196 riyāls which was originally owed to him by
Idrīs and Bū Shitta, Zaynab’s brothers, and for which Zaynab had guaranteed payment. This is the debt which
Aḥmad denied having guaranteed. However, Aḥmad also acknowledged owing 29 riyāls for a debt he had
guaranteed for his relative Ḥamīd b. Qudūr b. ‘Ayād. The qāḍī ruled that he must pay the 29 riyāls, which he
presumably did.
169
Presumably Shalom did not have in his possession a legal document which recorded the guarantee of the debt;
otherwise, one assumes, he would not have needed to provide the testimony of a lafīf.
170
A copy of this fatwā, as well as the others cited in connection to this case, is reproduced on the back of the lafīf
from 1 Rabī‘ I 1297 (File #1).
171
This is a point mentioned in two other fatwās (see File #2, from lawsuit beginning 20 Jumādā II 1294 and File
#10, from lawsuit beginning 23 Sha‘bān 1294).
111